Windows Vista

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Windows Vista
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · Next

AuthorMessage
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 762100 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 15:54:17 UTC - in response to Message 761903.  
Last modified: 2 Jun 2008, 15:55:19 UTC

MS needs to fix the annoying security warning problem. I'm all for extra security but after allowing a program to run 20 times, you would think the warnings would stop. Maybe there's a way to stop it for specified programs..don't know and don't care anymore.


If software vendors wrote their code properly, without requiring Admin access for everything, you wouldn't be running into that problem. I can't blame something on Microsoft for something the software developers aren't doing right.

That is the point of UAC, to bring to the attention of the user when a program needs Admin access. Not all software needs this level of access and its about time developers start writing their code that way.

[Edit] I was annoyed with UAC at first like everyone else. But now I'm glad Vista tells me when software wants Admin access so I can see what's trying to do what.
ID: 762100 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24884
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 762105 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 16:15:48 UTC - in response to Message 762100.  


[Edit] I was annoyed with UAC at first like everyone else. But now I'm glad Vista tells me when software wants Admin access so I can see what's trying to do what.



Sorry Ozzfan, I have to disagree. Vista Ultimate is supposed to be the Professional version. Surely people who purchase this & install it are aware of what they are doing. I for one, found it a pain & disabled it. That is why I agree with differnet versions (to a degree). 1 version for the ordinary home user, & another for those enthusiasts / O/C'ers etc.

I, as the computer owner installing that software, if I didn't want to continue I wouldn't install the thing in the 1st place - Again, the dumb leading the blind!
ID: 762105 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 762144 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 17:30:52 UTC - in response to Message 762105.  
Last modified: 2 Jun 2008, 18:32:09 UTC

[Edit] I was annoyed with UAC at first like everyone else. But now I'm glad Vista tells me when software wants Admin access so I can see what's trying to do what.



Sorry Ozzfan, I have to disagree. Vista Ultimate is supposed to be the Professional version. Surely people who purchase this & install it are aware of what they are doing. I for one, found it a pain & disabled it. That is why I agree with differnet versions (to a degree). 1 version for the ordinary home user, & another for those enthusiasts / O/C'ers etc.


That's an unsafe assumption. There are no restrictions to purchasing Vista Ultimate. Its entirely possible that people who think they have to have the highest end software run on their system just because they have the money, doesn't mean they are going to be the type that know what they are doing. There's still no guarantee that only techies will buy it.

And even if you do know what you are doing, doesn't mean you should be running as Admin all the time, nor should software developers be writing their programs assuming you do. This is one of the main reasons why *nix has been more successful than Windows in preventing hackers from gaining complete control of your system. UAC is Microsoft's attempt in making software manufactures write software for user level access so that the user isn't annoyed by UAC. I guess you could say this is another area where MS is playing catch-up with *nix.

I originally disable UAC myself, but I like the concept and the added protection, regardless of my skill level (which I consider to be quite high). Now I run with UAC enabled on all my machines that I use or administer.
ID: 762144 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24884
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 762161 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 19:18:33 UTC

OK, fair comment. I'n no *nix expert, but I find UAC very intrusive - Does it have to always crop up?

I agree that it's down to the developers - I've just come across a problem with Solaris 10. It installed nicely, however, every time I switch it on, it takes me to the root. Have had to print the user guides to find out how to set up an account as there is nowhere on the menu to guide one to the correct spot.

Personally I find good & bad in all O/S's. It's just a case of finding one that one is comfortable with & proceed from there.
ID: 762161 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 762164 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 19:22:55 UTC

Greetings everyone,

This is for OzzFan and all others that think that Micro$oft is the cat's meow when it comes to anything computer centric:

I used to live just down the freeway from a company in Carlsbad, California. I do not remember the name of the company anymore, since they no longer exist. Why don't they exist you ask? Well, I'll tell you:

Back in the 90s Micro$oft released v6.2 of it's "famous" MS-DOS operating system. The company, who's name I don't remember anymore, created the world's best hard drive compression software around. Well guess what? That company discovered that Micro$oft incorporated their compression code into MS-DOS. Without permission and compensation!!!! They went to court!

Little David, with about a million in income each year, took on BIG old Goliath with billions in income each year. Little David won the battle, but lost the war. Micro$oft was ordered to pay Little David damages and was ordered to pull the stolen hacked code and replace it with Little David's code giving him credit for it's creation.

V6.22 of Micro$oft's now infamous MS-DOS was released. Little David ceased to exist. Instead of paying damages to Little David, Micro$oft "bought" the company, took all the technology, closed the doors and went back to Redmond, Washington. Little David was so intimidated by Goliath's mighty pocketbook that he had no choice but to comply with the assimilation.

Does anyone remember Micro$oft Bob? No? Well, it's no wonder. That was Micro$oft's mighty blunder. Bob was a GUI type software where you could click on an object to do something. Click on a pad of paper on the desk and a mini word processor starts up. Click on the calculator and a calculator starts running. You get the picture.

Wild Bill was not going to release Bob because he knew it was crap. His biggest mistake was to marry the project manager. She told him that Bob was going to be released or else. Use your imagination and figure out what the "or else" might have been. Bob was released and Bob flopped big time. Bob was the only thing from Micro$oft that was totally created by MS "engineers".

The moral of this story: Do not think that Micro$oft is the next best thing to sliced bread. There are alternatives out there, some great alternatives and some great FREE alternatives, to anything Micro$soft puts out. Don't be afraid to check out alternatives. And don't have the attitude that "it's not made by Micro$oft so it can't be any good" when you do. Check them out with open eyes and an open mind. I'm not saying that the alternatives are perfect, they're not and I have seen that first hand. I'm saying that I would rather use the free open source OpenOffice Suite than spend $600.00 bucks, or more, on MS Office. OpenOffice is compatible with all Office file types.

Don't be assimilated, resistance is NOT futile!

Live long and prosper \\V/_

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 762164 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 762166 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 19:27:17 UTC - in response to Message 762161.  

OK, fair comment. I'n no *nix expert, but I find UAC very intrusive - Does it have to always crop up?


To one end I agree with you. I wish there were a way to have Vista "remember" which software I've already allowed so I don't have to be asked again. Of course, the other side of that is that if software developers wrote their code properly, I wouldn't have to worry about it in the first place.

Then, there's also the problem that if there were such a way, the enthusiasts would know about it and tell all the "average" users how to do it, thus eliminating the purpose of getting software developers to stop requiring Admin access to everything.

Personally I find good & bad in all O/S's. It's just a case of finding one that one is comfortable with & proceed from there.


Me too. I think that's what we're all doing, and we all find something that suits are needs. My only peeve is the constant complaints about MS (some of them are warranted, I won't deny it) and some poor arguments about their software. Then again, there are some excellent arguments about their software too, such as those with Internet Explorer and Windows Home Server.
ID: 762166 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24884
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 762169 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 19:48:05 UTC - in response to Message 762166.  


Me too. I think that's what we're all doing, and we all find something that suits are needs. My only peeve is the constant complaints about MS (some of them are warranted, I won't deny it) and some poor arguments about their software. Then again, there are some excellent arguments about their software too, such as those with Internet Explorer and Windows Home Server.


Agreed. MS isn't that bad. I.E., The problems others have experienced with WHS, I have not & as for the drives problem, I'm pretty sure on how it happened - However, MS should have realised this would happen due to the context of the OS. The DRIVES WERE 93&/94%/97%/93% & 98% full, so every time I added media, DE added it to the C: drive, which from what I've already experienced, is a NO-NO (took C: to 67%). Added a new drive to pool, problems disappeared.

I also agree with you regarding WHS, it was & is a brilliant concept, unfortunately, badly implemented. 64bit systems, forget it, it won't allow them entry. Vista 32bit, workarounds required to run properly. Saying that though, Solaris 10 64bit sees network, including server, with no problems, & it can access them with no configuration on my part - IF ONLY...........MS...

Regarding MS, I think that they need to develop a killer app/OS & have their developers take time & structure it properly.
ID: 762169 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 762170 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 19:48:39 UTC - in response to Message 761903.  

I just intentionally wiped Vista. I'm sick of it. I've had to reinstall my camera Surveillance software several times now. The final straw was when it no longer recognized the hardware DVR (Digital video recorder) for it.

MS needs to fix the annoying security warning problem. I'm all for extra security but after allowing a program to run 20 times, you would think the warnings would stop. Maybe there's a way to stop it for specified programs..don't know and don't care anymore.

I might reinstall in a few months after they get the bugs out. If they get the bugs out. Meanwhile, I have a very expensive Vista Ultimate cup coaster.

Greetings CR,

Long time no see dude!

I ditched Vista myself. I had it on a less than year old laptop and it took 5 minutes to boot. I overwrote the HD with an installation of Ubuntu Linux. 1 minute boots and all hardware was recognized, even my built in wireless adapter which I was worried about. I will never put Vista on a computer. I'll wait to see what comes of Win 7.

Live long and prosper \\V/_

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 762170 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 762173 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 20:06:21 UTC - in response to Message 762100.  

....
If software vendors wrote their code properly, without requiring Admin access for everything, you wouldn't be running into that problem. I can't blame something on Microsoft for something the software developers aren't doing right.

That is the point of UAC, to bring to the attention of the user when a program needs Admin access. Not all software needs this level of access and its about time developers start writing their code that way.

[Edit] I was annoyed with UAC at first like everyone else. But now I'm glad Vista tells me when software wants Admin access so I can see what's trying to do what.

The first thing I did was shut down that annoying, in your face, false sense of security. Micro$oft needs to learn that the rest of the world, outside their little domain in Redmond, is not comprised of moronic, drooling idiots. I'm no expert with computers by any stretch, but I learn and I know enough that if I click "Format disk in drive /a?", I know it's going to format a disk in drive /a. I don't need Windoze telling me I'm going to do it when I *WANT* to do it in the first place. The UAC is a false sense of security, a work-a-round that the brainiacs in Redmond thought up.

Live long and prosper \\V/_

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 762173 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 762174 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 20:16:03 UTC - in response to Message 762173.  

The first thing I did was shut down that annoying, in your face, false sense of security.

Yay! no more TSA... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 762174 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 762175 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 20:18:50 UTC - in response to Message 762174.  

The first thing I did was shut down that annoying, in your face, false sense of security.

Yay! no more TSA... ;)

Pardom me, but what is TSA?

Live long and prosper \\V/_

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 762175 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 762179 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 20:25:08 UTC - in response to Message 762164.  
Last modified: 2 Jun 2008, 22:09:36 UTC

This is for OzzFan and all others that think that Micro$oft is the cat's meow when it comes to anything computer centric:


Firstly, this is a gross misinterpretation of my stance on Microsoft. I do not think Microsoft is "the cat's meow". What I think is that the Windows OS is a fine product, popular for a reason (and not because marketing has said its the only choice out there) and works well despite false claims about it.

I used to live just down the freeway from a company in Carlsbad, California. I do not remember the name of the company anymore, since they no longer exist. Why don't they exist you ask? Well, I'll tell you:

Back in the 90s Micro$oft released v6.2 of it's "famous" MS-DOS operating system. The company, who's name I don't remember anymore, created the world's best hard drive compression software around. Well guess what? That company discovered that Micro$oft incorporated their compression code into MS-DOS. Without permission and compensation!!!! They went to court!

Little David, with about a million in income each year, took on BIG old Goliath with billions in income each year. Little David won the battle, but lost the war. Micro$oft was ordered to pay Little David damages and was ordered to pull the stolen hacked code and replace it with Little David's code giving him credit for it's creation.

V6.22 of Micro$oft's now infamous MS-DOS was released. Little David ceased to exist. Instead of paying damages to Little David, Micro$oft "bought" the company, took all the technology, closed the doors and went back to Redmond, Washington. Little David was so intimidated by Goliath's mighty pocketbook that he had no choice but to comply with the assimilation.


Yes, you're talking about Stacker. I'm very familiar with the history of Microsoft and all of their legal problems. I'm not about to make excuses for them or their business practices. If you want to hate them for it, that's your choice (and anyone else that chooses that route).

For the record, as long as you brought it up, Stac Electronics did indeed sue Microsoft and win. MS-DOS 6.21 was the result of an injunction against Microsoft to stop selling MS-DOS 6.2 which had the illegal code in it, and MS-DOS 6.22 was with a newer drive compression algorithm that wasn't copied from Stacker.

Incidentally, IBM decided to license Stacker from Stac Electronics and it was included in PC DOS (IBM's version of DOS) v6.1, v7.0 and PC DOS 2000 (v7.0 with Y2K updates).

Oh - and why doesn't Stac Electronics exist? Its because of the introduction of the FAT32 file system which doesn't support or need compression. NTFS has built-in compression. By the time the courts had finished with this case, MS-DOS 6.22 was released and MS were already working on their next version of Windows, codenamed "Chicago", which would become Windows 95. They were already working on the FAT32 file system which was released with Windows 95 "B" and all later OSes. Stacker became obsolete because of a more efficient file system that supported Long File Names by its inception. FAT was wasteful and getting moreso with every large(r) hard drive released at the time.

Microsoft did not buy out Stac Electronics at all, let alone to "squash" them. The company foresaw that their product was going to be obsolete, so they changed course and changed their name.

My only intention is to clear up false claims about Microsoft Windows. If you want to hate the company, hey, that's your prerogative. If you want to hate Windows, fine, just make sure you're not spreading FUD when you bash it. Sticking to the facts is all I would like to see anyone doing (about their software). I try to do the same when criticizing *nix, all I expect is the same respect in return.

Does anyone remember Micro$oft Bob? No? Well, it's no wonder. That was Micro$oft's mighty blunder. Bob was a GUI type software where you could click on an object to do something. Click on a pad of paper on the desk and a mini word processor starts up. Click on the calculator and a calculator starts running. You get the picture.


Yes, I remember Microsoft Bob. I've been in the industry quite a while and I'm familiar with many products and companies. (Please don't make the assumption that just because I like Microsoft that I'm some n00b who's unfamiliar with MS's bad products).

Yes, MS Bob sucked. Again, I've already said that Microsoft has bad products, and I'm willing to state when I think so. I've already mentioned the problems with IE and WHS. I know there's more out there, but that doesn't make all of their software bad.

The moral of this story: Do not think that Micro$oft is the next best thing to sliced bread. There are alternatives out there, some great alternatives and some great FREE alternatives, to anything Micro$soft puts out. Don't be afraid to check out alternatives. And don't have the attitude that "it's not made by Micro$oft so it can't be any good" when you do.


You're getting pretty close to offensive here. I don't believe Microsoft is the "next best thing to sliced bread" and I don't really need that type of assumption about my perspective in this conversation.

I'm well aware that there are free alternatives. I've tried quite a few and I don't like most of it. I like Firefox and Thunderbird. So don't tell me what my attitude is like when you really are showing how little you know of me.

Check them out with open eyes and an open mind. I'm not saying that the alternatives are perfect, they're not and I have seen that first hand. I'm saying that I would rather use the free open source OpenOffice Suite than spend $600.00 bucks, or more, on MS Office. OpenOffice is compatible with all Office file types.


Just mentioning that you are suggesting I try them "with open eyes and an open mind" is offensive. Why would I do anything else otherwise? I'm not Pro-Microsoft any more than I am anti-*nix. I try and judge any software as I see it... as it would fit into my life and fulfill my needs.

I've tried OpenOffice in an actual business environment. I tried opening business document templates that were designed with Microsoft Office with OpenOffice and OpenOffice did not display nor print them properly. The bullet points used in the document had "hand graphics pointing to the sentence" instead of an actual bullet point. This is unacceptable. Blame it on Microsoft all you want, I don't care. If it does not do what I want, then I'm not using it. And if I'm happy spending $600 on MS Office because it works great, then that's what my company is going to do.

I try everything with an open mind. To do so otherwise wouldn't be fair, and I believe myself to be a very fair person. Just because I'm not in love with Linux or just because I actually like Microsoft, doesn't mean I haven't tried things with an open mind.

If that were true, then why would I like OS/2? Sure, Microsoft started development on it with IBM, but I think OS/2 v4 was an excellent OS. Unfortunately, poor software support, buggy drivers and extraneous steps to do simple things like add a printer made it very unpopular.


Please... let's not turn this into a flame-fest. But let's also not make assumptions about the people you're talking to that might be deemed offensive. I respect everyone's opinion here even if I don't agree, but please don't tell me what I think and feel or what my attitude is like when you have no clue. And don't try to talk to me as if I'm completely ignorant of Microsoft or the computer industry in general. I'm well aware as I've lived quite a bit of the history myself. I still choose Microsoft, and I choose them for a reason. I don't like being told that I only feel this way because of some MS Marketing Dept. or because I simply don't know any better. You wouldn't like it much either so please, a little "Golden Rule" here anyone? I don't like it.
ID: 762179 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 762180 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 20:28:37 UTC - in response to Message 762175.  

Pardom me, but what is TSA?

I'm guessing you don't fly the friendly skies very often... ;)

(It was a joke. Having to explain a joke only diminishes its humor. If you didn't get it, then just ignore it.)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 762180 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 762181 - Posted: 2 Jun 2008, 20:29:16 UTC - in response to Message 762173.  

The first thing I did was shut down that annoying, in your face, false sense of security.


Prove that its a false sense of security without making wild claims. Provide verified links to your sources that are well respected by IT Professionals and I'll believe you.

Micro$oft needs to learn that the rest of the world, outside their little domain in Redmond, is not comprised of moronic, drooling idiots. I'm no expert with computers by any stretch, but I learn and I know enough that if I click "Format disk in drive /a?", I know it's going to format a disk in drive /a.


You clearly haven't worked with the same type of people I have. I really don't believe people are "moronic, drooling idiots", but I do believe that there's more to computers than the average person is willing to learn, and as long as computers are ubiquitous in the marketplace, and as long as people will unknowingly do stupid things, and as long as people will moan and cry that Microsoft isn't doing enough to stop it, things like UAC and confirmation prompts are a necessity.
ID: 762181 · Report as offensive
Sniper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 99
Posts: 310
Credit: 2,831,142
RAC: 0
United States
Message 762276 - Posted: 3 Jun 2008, 0:55:00 UTC - in response to Message 761911.  

Still fighting with this one.... My Vista backup file is a .XML extension file. It is on a separate partition of the same disk that Vista is on(no recovery disks). Vista is corrupted, and wont even load to a recovery screen. Due to adding a 2nd hard drive, I now have XP access to the Vista HDD, and also the Backup HDD partition. Is there a program that will restore that .XML file, and the whole disk/Vista OS from it?

Thanks in advance,

Mark


Give this a try. http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/windows-vista-recovery-disc-download/


Thanks, going to give it a try momentarily! :)


Thanks again, however, .... It boots up, even reinstalls the backup from the separate partition, but it will not boot up. It tries though, which is more than it did before.

I am going to have to stick with the XP until Santa brings along another OS, or I figure it out. XP64 is crunching nicely though.

Eventually I will get it right. Unfortunately I think the main problem is a BIOS issue... Not having everything set properly. (This happens when you have to reset the bios, due to failed overclocking) Being a bit more conservative with my overclocking now too... 4x2700MHz, crunching away calmly.
ID: 762276 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5700
Credit: 3,855,702
RAC: 50
United Kingdom
Message 762421 - Posted: 3 Jun 2008, 13:26:34 UTC
Last modified: 3 Jun 2008, 13:28:05 UTC

A friend has the exact same laptop as mine (apart from the battery and card reader) but running its original Vista OS, tried a few simple benchmarks this morning with the stopwatch, boot time, copying files from an external hard drive and burning them to a DVD. In this case, the first four series of Red Dwarf, total size of 3.8Gb.

Boot time:
Vista, 78s.
Ubuntu 7.04, 24s.

Copying Files:
Vista, 7m34s
Ubuntu, 2m28s

Burning to DVD:
Vista, 14m27s
Ubuntu, 7m34s

Now, bearing in mind that this is exactly the same hardware, copying the same files, from and to the same hard disk, burning to the same type of DVD, using exactly the same drive: What in heavens name caused Vista to take three times longer to copy and twice as long to burn?

I don't mean to bash Vista too much, but Micro$oft make it so easy to do.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 762421 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34285
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 762427 - Posted: 3 Jun 2008, 13:38:07 UTC


Boot time is oK.

Burning DVD on my machine 6 mins.´for dual layer 8.5 Gigs.

Copying files what size?
I never wait that long.



With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 762427 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 762428 - Posted: 3 Jun 2008, 13:38:19 UTC - in response to Message 762421.  
Last modified: 3 Jun 2008, 13:42:13 UTC

What in heavens name caused Vista to take three times longer to copy and twice as long to burn?

For every bit of data, Vista had to ask itself:

'I am about to modify data, am I sure I want to do that?'... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 762428 · Report as offensive
Profile The Simonator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 5700
Credit: 3,855,702
RAC: 50
United Kingdom
Message 762450 - Posted: 3 Jun 2008, 15:18:39 UTC - in response to Message 762427.  


Boot time is oK.

Burning DVD on my machine 6 mins.´for dual layer 8.5 Gigs.

Copying files what size?
I never wait that long.


Your DVD drive is probably a bit (a lot) faster than mine.

3.8 Gb of movie files, from a Maxtor 3200 USB hard drive to the laptops internal drive.
Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.
ID: 762450 · Report as offensive
Profile Siran d'Vel'nahr
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 May 99
Posts: 7379
Credit: 44,181,323
RAC: 238
United States
Message 762502 - Posted: 3 Jun 2008, 21:40:32 UTC - in response to Message 762179.  

...
...
...
Yes, you're talking about Stacker. ...
...
...
...
You're getting pretty close to offensive here. ...
...
Just mentioning that you are suggesting I try them "with open eyes and an open mind" is offensive. ...

1. Thanks for reminding me of the name of the company. My take on them was from reading about them in the news. At this point in time, it is moot. So, I won't argue about history, or anyone's version of it.

2. It was not my intension to offend, you or anyone else. If I have, then I offer my apologies.

3. This may have the potential of offending, but again, it is not my intension. Ask anyone here, I speak my mind and there are those that take offense.

I just saw that you are a forum moderator. Because you are taking offense to something I state in a post, or the way I happen to state it, leads me to believe that you are reading from the Misfit/Fuzzy play book. I could not post a single post, no matter how innocent it was, without them taking offense to it simply because it came from me. You don't need to bother going into post histories either, they have effectively rewritten history.

As an example: I was going to update my team thread on the Recruitment board yesterday. Guess what? Both of them, the threads, are gone! I never got an e-mail notice of moderation about the deletions. I dug deep into my post history and could not find a single post to either of the 2 threads I had. I went beyond the time when SETI decided to create that board, when I would have individual posts in various other generic recruitment threads. Not a single post, did I find. I was told it could have been due to a data wipe. It's too selective for that theory to hold water.

========================

Ok, enough of that. My original point was that I did not post here to offend you or anyone else. To tell you the truth, I'm a bit offended that you took offense. There, I believe that balances the universe again. :)

From this time forward, I will no longer post in this thread. I do believe this post will get modded too. So be it. No sweat. Just send an e-mail notice. :)

Live long and prosper \\V/_



CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath
ID: 762502 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Windows Vista


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.